/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>19113044


>there is no correlation at all between rank and marketcap.
Anon, rank is DEFINED by the relative market cap.

>the only thing you can estimate is the market share chainlink could have.

First, maybe don't call it 'market share'. That term is almost always used to in the context of competing companies in a specific industry - i.e. Coca Cola's 'market share' of soft drink sales.

Why is 'market share' the only thing we can estimate? It's definitely one metric you can use, but you can also use rank, or % of total derivatives market - a good approach used in that '$81,000 link' infographic. You could estimate prices of crypto based on anything. The question is, what approach gives you the most useful information?
The approach in your chart is based on FIXED PERCENTAGES of total mcap and adjusted LINEARLY with each step on the graph. The approach in the original chart is based on RELATIVE changes in mcap based on the current rank/mcap distribution, and as such follows the CURVED IN DISTRIBUTION in coin ranks. We can use either. But which is better?

So, if you look at the attached pic, it's a graph showing the distribution of % total crypto mcap (the metric you use) and crypto coin rank. Looking at this for even one second makes it clear that using fixed percentages is retarded. The distribution of mcap and rank is clearly a top-heavy curve with a long tail (see light blue trendline). This is what the original chart followed.

What your new shit follows is the red line. It's a linear increase in % from link's current % mcap to 40% - except you didn't even stick to that rule, in the top few positions it starts jumping by 5% at a time?

So, i mean, I'll leave it up to you. Look at the blue line. Look at the red line. Tell me which you think will be a more USEFUL tool for looking at the price of link. Or, explain to me why linear % looking at Mcap dominance is a better assumption than looking at rank?